Faith is not "without evidence" argument

[BidenPresident]

Into the Night=Stalker

This behavior should be banned.

 

[Into the Night]

Lost interest in your explicit racism. I am not here to make your racism seem rational.

He is not exhibiting racism.

 

[Into the Night]

Nobody on this board would agree to be a slave for 20 years so they could learn how to make horseshoes.

What has that got to do with anything?

 

[Into the Night]

Because you ask questions that are irrelevant to the reality that some slaves benefited from the skills/crafts/education they received while slaves. The percentage of those who benefited is irrelevant. Your comparison to other terrible situations is irrelevant. The fact that slavery was terrible is irrelevant. The fact that slaves would have been happier in their homeland than being a slave is irrelevant.

There is a simple truth here: some slaves benefited from what they learned as slaves. Stating that fact does not make you a racist, despite the dishonest attempts by you and BidenPresident to portray it that way.

Facts are facts. Facts can't be racist - they are just facts.

Unfortunately, with The Sock, they are not facts. They are arguments.

To you and me, they are facts, based on logic. But The Sock denies and discards logic.

 

[Into the Night]

So it's all my fault? Got it. Thanks for your input, 'Mode.

Random phrase. No apparent coherency. Try following the conversation for once.

 

[Into the Night]

The fact that there is no tangible evidence of a multiverse does not stop scientists from speculating about it, and entertaining the possibility it exists.

Einstein and other early 20th century physicists just wanted to believe the universe was static, unchanging, and uniform because that belief was more intellectually pleasing than the concept of a moment of creation and evolving universe

Metaphysics and assumptions underlie a lot of science, more so than laypersons realize.

That's not a diss on science. The inductive method is arguably the most powerful intellectual tool ever invented by humans. But the fact is, science knows a lot less than laypersons realize, and assumption and metaphysics underlie a lot of scientific theory.

There is no science here.

 

[Damocles]

There is no evidence of miracles or supernatural forces. Only unexplained events such as the UFOs in the news a few weeks back.

The things I posted were not my ideas; they are hundreds of years old.

It doesn't matter how old a question is, it is not evidence of absence. Seriously, it isn't even bad evidence it is just a question. The simple reality most folks get wrong is that faith is the belief in something where there is "no evidence", it's simply wrong. Faith is based on what I consider to be unconvincing evidence, but it is still evidence. I know you've spent a lifetime telling folks that "Faith" just means you have no evidence, but it doesn't. Circumstantial evidence often is unconvincing, but it is still evidence. Sometimes all you have is circumstantial evidence yet something is still proven beyond a doubt and someone is convicted. Not the case with Faith, but they have eyewitness reports that we see as unconvincing, that is still evidence even if you don't want it to be so.

As I noted earlier, just saying "Nuh-uh!" really insistently doesn't change the nature of a thing, however unconvincing you and I may think the evidence is, their faith is based on evidence. They have the stories listed in their Great Works of Nature (you know Bibles and Torahs, and Korans, and Bhagavad Gitas). Without these eyewitness reports and unconvincing to you and I evidence they wouldn't even know the stories that they base their faiths on.

 

[Into the Night]

It's apparent that you're as dumb as a bag of rocks.

They must be very smart rocks, then.

Wrong again, idiot. I support abortion. When did I ever say I support "killing living humans" (itself a redundant phrase)?

You just said it. You support abortion. That is killing living humans.

A microscopic fetus is not a living, thinking thing. Killing a bug is a greater atrocity than killing a microscopic fetus is.

A human fetus is a human being.

We were talking about abortions.

Which is killing human beings.

You think that a microscopic fetus is comparable to an infant because you're an idiot. Keep up, idiot.

It isn't microscopic. It is killing an infant.

The Jesus believer who denies science is calling me "stupid."

It is YOU that denies science. You believe in the Church of Global Warming, for example. As a matter of routine, you normally discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Hm. Should I side with NASA or the retard?
Yeah, I'm going with NASA.

Science is not a government agency.

 

[Into the Night]

It doesn't matter how old a question is, it is not evidence of absence. Seriously, it isn't even bad evidence it is just a question. The simple reality most folks get wrong is that faith is the belief in something where there is "no evidence", it's simply wrong. Faith is based on what I consider to be unconvincing evidence, but it is still evidence. I know you've spent a lifetime telling folks that "Faith" just means you have no evidence, but it doesn't. Circumstantial evidence often is unconvincing, but it is still evidence. Sometimes all you have is circumstantial evidence yet something is still proven beyond a doubt and someone is convicted. Not the case with Faith, but they have eyewitness reports that we see as unconvincing, that is still evidence even if you don't want it to be so.

As I noted earlier, just saying "Nuh-uh!" really insistently doesn't change the nature of a thing, however unconvincing you and I may think the evidence is, their faith is based on evidence. They have the stories listed in their Great Works of Nature (you know Bibles and Torahs, and Korans, and Bhagavad Gitas). Without these eyewitness reports and unconvincing to you and I evidence they wouldn't even know the stories that they base their faiths on.

Well put, Damo.

 

[IBDaMann]

When did I ever say I support "killing living humans"

Abortion is a subset of the superset "killing living humans who have not committed any crime." Being as brain-dead as you are, I don't expect you to understand set theory. Suffice to say that if you support abortion, you support the killing of living humans who have not committed any crime. I know you want to disagree, but it's math and you'd be in error.

Come to think of it, that has never stopped you before. Heck, have at it.

A microscopic fetus is not a living, thinking thing.

Whether or not the fetus is thinking is irrelevant. All that matters is that it has a heartbeat. If it has a heartbeat then it is alive. There is no such thing as a dead human/animal with a heartbeat. If you wish to contest this, not only would you be indistinguishable from the certifiably insane, you would stand in disagreement with the entire global medical community that recognizes "if there is a heartbeat, there is life."

Would you care to have at it?

Killing a bug is a greater atrocity than killing a [living human who has not committed any crime]

I get it. You are a rabid Marxist who HATES humanity. Nothing more needs to be said.

We were talking about abortions.

... which is a proper subset of killing living humans who have not committed any crime.

You know all this. You simply refuse to answer any questions that reveal this, because you are a totally dishonest Marxist coward who HATES humanity and the world.

You think that a microscopic fetus is comparable to an infant

That's not my position. You just assigned to me a bogus position that I do not hold.

My position is that killing a fetus that has a heartbeat is killing a living human who has not committed any crime. Please get it right. Fetus + heartbeat = living human - any crime

The Jesus believer who denies science is calling me "stupid."

Too funny. The cowardly Marxist who doesn't even know what science is, is calling me religious. They don't write this kind of comedy.

Hm. Should I side with NASA or the retard?

This is the hilarious part, i.e. you think NASA is clergy who should be OBEYED. Too funny. Would you mind telling me why you worship NASA? I'm not the only one who would get a kick out of knowing your answer.

So here on JPP, you have me willing to give you correct answers for free, but you would rather bend over for NASA so they can ream you with their disinformation. You are so wise.

Too funny. I really do pity you.

 

[IBDaMann]

Metaphysics and assumptions underlie a lot of science, more so than laypersons realize.

There are no metaphysics in physics. If you disagree, perhaps you can provide some examples of metaphysics in physics that underlie the physics.

That's not a diss on science.

It's just an error on your part.

The inductive method is arguably the most powerful intellectual tool ever invented by humans.

How would you argue this?

But the fact is, science knows a lot less than laypersons realize,

Science knows nothing. Your statement is stupid.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Random phrase. No apparent coherency. Try following the conversation for once.

Mantra 46 Horse Assery

Mantra 1a.

Mantra 4a.

One of the "miscellaneous" documents on that site is Into the Night's mantra list.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

It doesn't matter how old a question is, it is not evidence of absence. Seriously, it isn't even bad evidence it is just a question. The simple reality most folks get wrong is that faith is the belief in something where there is "no evidence", it's simply wrong. Faith is based on what I consider to be unconvincing evidence, but it is still evidence. I know you've spent a lifetime telling folks that "Faith" just means you have no evidence, but it doesn't. Circumstantial evidence often is unconvincing, but it is still evidence. Sometimes all you have is circumstantial evidence yet something is still proven beyond a doubt and someone is convicted. Not the case with Faith, but they have eyewitness reports that we see as unconvincing, that is still evidence even if you don't want it to be so.

As I noted earlier, just saying "Nuh-uh!" really insistently doesn't change the nature of a thing, however unconvincing you and I may think the evidence is, their faith is based on evidence. They have the stories listed in their Great Works of Nature (you know Bibles and Torahs, and Korans, and Bhagavad Gitas). Without these eyewitness reports and unconvincing to you and I evidence they wouldn't even know the stories that they base their faiths on.

I'd love to see a miracle, real magic, ghosts or anything else from the supernatural.

 

[ZenMode]

Unfortunately, with The Sock, they are not facts. They are arguments.

To you and me, they are facts, based on logic. But The Sock denies and discards logic.

I would argue that they are facts by definition, not just to you and me.

 

[Cypress]

Bulverism
Argument from ignorance fallacy
Delusions of grandeur fallacy

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

The Theory of the Big Bang is just a nonscientific theory

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

There is no such thing as an 'accelerating frame of reference'.

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

Axioms are not postulates!

The Nazis were also socialists.

Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.

Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.

bigotry, bulverism

 

[gfm7175]

[quote and emoji spamming]

@CRYpress & Dutch

Wow. It seems that IBDaMann, Into the Night, and I have long since completely broken the both of you down to the point of incessant spamming. You both used to, at the very least, be able to form sentences in Liberal, but have long since been broken from even THAT pathetic little capability.

Who knew that three forum users could have SOOOOOOOOOO much control over both of your heads??

No wonder the rent is free...

 

[Ross Dolan]

It doesn't matter how old a question is, it is not evidence of absence. Seriously, it isn't even bad evidence it is just a question. The simple reality most folks get wrong is that faith is the belief in something where there is "no evidence", it's simply wrong. Faith is based on what I consider to be unconvincing evidence, but it is still evidence. I know you've spent a lifetime telling folks that "Faith" just means you have no evidence, but it doesn't. Circumstantial evidence often is unconvincing, but it is still evidence. Sometimes all you have is circumstantial evidence yet something is still proven beyond a doubt and someone is convicted. Not the case with Faith, but they have eyewitness reports that we see as unconvincing, that is still evidence even if you don't want it to be so.

As I noted earlier, just saying "Nuh-uh!" really insistently doesn't change the nature of a thing, however unconvincing you and I may think the evidence is, their faith is based on evidence. They have the stories listed in their Great Works of Nature (you know Bibles and Torahs, and Korans, and Bhagavad Gitas). Without these eyewitness reports and unconvincing to you and I evidence they wouldn't even know the stories that they base their faiths on.

"Believing" something in this area...is simply guessing it to be so. It essentially is a lind guess, because the evidence is so ambiguous.

Someone saying, "I believe a GOD exists" is really just saying, "It is my guess that a GOD exists."

Conversely, someone saying, "I believe there are no gods" is really just saying, "It is my guess that no gods exist."

"Faith" is merely INSISTING that the guess is correct.

When the world finally gets that...we will all be better off.

 

[BidenPresident]

"Believing" something in this area...is simply guessing it to be so. It essentially is a lind guess, because the evidence is so ambiguous.

Someone saying, "I believe a GOD exists" is really just saying, "It is my guess that a GOD exists."

Conversely, someone saying, "I believe there are no gods" is really just saying, "It is my guess that no gods exist."

"Faith" is merely INSISTING that the guess is correct.

When the world finally gets that...we will all be better off.

You post is a blind guess.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

"Believing" something in this area...is simply guessing it to be so. It essentially is a lind guess, because the evidence is so ambiguous.

Someone saying, "I believe a GOD exists" is really just saying, "It is my guess that a GOD exists."

Conversely, someone saying, "I believe there are no gods" is really just saying, "It is my guess that no gods exist."

"Faith" is merely INSISTING that the guess is correct.

When the world finally gets that...we will all be better off.

Not believing in the god about whom I was taught, Frank,
seems much more like a direct observation than a mere belief.


I was taught about a god who was

one, omnipotent, ie, all-powerful, could do or create anything that he wanted,

two, was all loving...loved us all,

three, despite being both omnipotent and all-loving,
created this universe in which his beloved subjects could live.

Do I have to believe anything to know that this can't be true?
Can't we all clearly SEE that this can't be true?

I respect your opinions as always, Frank,
but it's hard to understand why we can't all plainly see
that the aforementioned god can't possibly exist
unless everything we know about logic came to us via pipe dream.

 

[Cypress]

...

Bulverism
Argument from ignorance fallacy
Delusions of grandeur fallacy

hint: energy and matter are not interchangeable

The Theory of the Big Bang is just a nonscientific theory

Wave-Particle duality is classical physics.

There is no such thing as an accelerating reference frame!!

There is no such thing as an 'accelerating frame of reference'.

Darwin's theory of evolution is not science

Axioms are not postulates!

The Nazis were also socialists.

Bulverism fallacy. Bigotry.

Bulverism. Bigotry. False Authority.

bigotry, bulverism